Taft election results could be challenged because of annexation, voting rights disputes

TAFT - The results of Saturday's city elections in Taft may be open to legal challenges because of a lingering annexation dispute.

Annexation of the neighborhoods known as South Taft, and the subsequent reversal of the annexation, has led to accusations of federal voting rights violations.

Mayor Bobby Vega said the tangle of complex issues could lead to lawsuits against the city to challenge the election results.

"This is something we certainly aren't pleased with," he said. "We were hoping we could have resolved this in last couple of years."

In March 2009, Taft annexed about 200 acres on the city's southwest side that included hundreds of homes. In February 2010, the city approved an ordinance reversing the annexation.

Some city officials, including Vega, said the original annexation wasn't legal, in part because the city rushed the annexation through in six months and didn't provide a state-mandated two-year annexation plan.

But others, such as former Mayor Filberto Rivera, who lost to Vega in May 2009, said it was the de-annexation that wasn't handled properly and is therefore illegal. Rivera is running against Vega in Saturday's election. There also are six candidates vying for two seats on the Taft City Council.

With each side accusing the other of using annexation or de-annexation as a tool to redraw voting lines and shift electoral outcomes, the dispute has drawn the attention of the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

In April 2010, Taft resident Jose Garcia, who lives in the annexed area, complained to the Justice Department, saying the de-annexation was aimed at suppressing the voting rights of residents in the area.

On May 7, 2010, the day before last year's city election, a district judge in San Patricio County granted an injunction to Garcia and his citizens' group, the Taft Community Association, requiring the city to allow residents in the de-annexed area to cast provisional ballots — even though the city considered those residents to be living outside city limits.

An attorney for the association argued in his injunction request that it's against state law for cities to redraw voting lines within three months of an election. The de-annexation changed the shape of the city's two wards.

County records show 37 provisional ballots were cast and all were rejected by the city's ballot board, County Elections Administrator Pam Hill said.

There weren't enough provisional ballots to affect the outcome of the races, but Garcia said voters nonetheless were disenfranchised because most assumed they weren't eligible to vote and didn't go to the polls.

A Justice Department spokeswoman wouldn't comment. But in letters to city officials, the department has sought information about the city's de-annexation process and told the city that the de-annexation isn't legally enforceable unless the city provides proof that it followed proper procedures.

So now, on the eve of another municipal election, the city has found itself in the odd position of not only allowing residents who live in a de-annexed area to vote, but also allowing residents in the area, including Garcia, to run for office. As a result of the annexation, the city has 3,342 registered voters.

"The Department of Justice did give preclearance to allow folks to vote in the next election, so the city is going to allow that," Vega said. "We are not going to violate any voter's rights."

But much is left in limbo. If the de-annexation is upheld, there could be candidates such as Garcia who are elected to office on Saturday but who no longer live in the city.

Vega said that's why the city is expecting potential lawsuits.

"I firmly believe if those folks were elected, then if the de-annexation process occurs, they would most likely lose their seats," Vega said.

The confusion prompted the county to decide not to administer this year's election for the city; Taft is running its own election this week.

"We couldn't get an answer on if the annexed people were in or out of the city, and without knowing, we weren't able to decide who could vote and who couldn't vote," Hill said.